PREMALATHA Vs. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful first defendant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit was filed by the plaintiff restraining the second defendant/Electricity Board from giving the service connection to the first defendant's house through the plaintiff's property and if already such service connection is effected, for a mandatory injunction to remove the same.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Ramakrishnan S/o. Ramanujam Pillai and his son Krishnamoorthy and from them, one Sundaramoorthy and Balasubramanian had purchased the same on 11.03.1996. The plaintiff, on 07.10.1998, had purchased the property from the said Sundaramoorthy and Balasubramanian. There is a three feet common pathway east of the suit property which also found mentioned in the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, though it is stated that there is a three feet pathway, actually there is only two feet available. When the first defendant had applied for getting a service connection with the second defendant, on a spot inspection, it was actually stated by the second defendant that the said pathway is not exclusively belonging to the plaintiff and it is a common pathway. Hence, the plaintiff has come up with the suit restraining the second defendant in any way erecting or putting any new electricity pole and giving new connection to the first defendant's property through the said pathway.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant stating that the entire extent of the land in that area was cultivable lands, which have, later, been converted into house sites. During such conversion, three feet lane was left out for the purpose of common usage like laying drainage pipes, etc. The plaintiff also has purchased the property on 07.10.1998 from his vendors only on the same conditions. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot have any objection in drawing the wire from the common pathway. Though the plaintiff has claimed the suit pathway as his absolute lane, the second defendant has obtained legal opinion, from which it is clear that the suit property was only a common pathway and it is not exclusively belonging to the plaintiff.